Log in 
New user? Re: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court.
Message Details
Posted
12/12/2001; 6:42 PM by Brian CarnellLast Modified
12/12/2001; 6:42 PM by Brian CarnellIn Response To
Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. (#3695)Label
PoliticsRead Count
525
Message Body
At 12:27 PM 12/12/2001 -0500, Richard Knox wrote:
>Senator Jesse Helms was against it - since he feels might allow other
>countries to punish our soldiers. In fact, as I understand it, we have veto
>power via the UN which would supervise the court, but we
Its a real shame that Helms always bring this argument up because it is a
trivially absurd objection. Sometimes it is good that foreign countries
punish our soldiers. For example, I don't see Helms standing up to say that
U.S. military personnel accused of rape in Japan should be tried in the U.S.
The real problem with the current proposal for the ICC is that it has very
few limited for defendants. If you had an international court that
guaranteed defendants the sort of rights that Americans accused of crimes
have, then it would be worth support. But as it is the court would allow,
- only limited ability of defendants to confront their accusers -- and in
some cases absolutely no right to do so
- convictions based on a simple majority vote of judges rather than a
unanimous vote (3-2 is a nice score for a baseball game, but not for
sending someone to jail for the rest of her life)
- judges being seated from countries that lack political freedom (how would
you like to bet your life on a judge from North Korea?)
but most importantly -- no guarantee against double jeopardy.
In most criminal systems in the free world, if a jury or judge finds you
not guilty, that's pretty much the end of the matter.
Not so in the proposed ICC. A prosecutor in the ICC can appeal a not guilty
verdict and the appellate court has the authority to overturn such a
verdict -- and then they try the entire case again. To my knowledge, even
the proposed U.S. military tribunals don't contain a component that can
overturn a not guilty verdict.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is largely one of style on this
issue. The Clinton administration recognized all the problems with the ICC,
but wanted to join anyway claiming that would give the U.S. a better chance
of pushing through changes to make the process more fair. The Bush
administration (like conservative critics of the ICC) basically says make
the changes first and then we'll think about joining.
>Senator Jesse Helms was against it - since he feels might allow other
>countries to punish our soldiers. In fact, as I understand it, we have veto
>power via the UN which would supervise the court, but we
Its a real shame that Helms always bring this argument up because it is a
trivially absurd objection. Sometimes it is good that foreign countries
punish our soldiers. For example, I don't see Helms standing up to say that
U.S. military personnel accused of rape in Japan should be tried in the U.S.
The real problem with the current proposal for the ICC is that it has very
few limited for defendants. If you had an international court that
guaranteed defendants the sort of rights that Americans accused of crimes
have, then it would be worth support. But as it is the court would allow,
- only limited ability of defendants to confront their accusers -- and in
some cases absolutely no right to do so
- convictions based on a simple majority vote of judges rather than a
unanimous vote (3-2 is a nice score for a baseball game, but not for
sending someone to jail for the rest of her life)
- judges being seated from countries that lack political freedom (how would
you like to bet your life on a judge from North Korea?)
but most importantly -- no guarantee against double jeopardy.
In most criminal systems in the free world, if a jury or judge finds you
not guilty, that's pretty much the end of the matter.
Not so in the proposed ICC. A prosecutor in the ICC can appeal a not guilty
verdict and the appellate court has the authority to overturn such a
verdict -- and then they try the entire case again. To my knowledge, even
the proposed U.S. military tribunals don't contain a component that can
overturn a not guilty verdict.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is largely one of style on this
issue. The Clinton administration recognized all the problems with the ICC,
but wanted to join anyway claiming that would give the U.S. a better chance
of pushing through changes to make the process more fair. The Bush
administration (like conservative critics of the ICC) basically says make
the changes first and then we'll think about joining.
Replies
| Re: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. ( 12/12/2001 by Donald W. Larson ) | |
| Brian said: In most criminal systems in the free world, if a jury or judge |
| RE: Why Bush should let the US join the international criminal court. ( 12/13/2001 by Richard Knox ) | |
| Brian quick response limited time. Understand all that follows should |
